R v Wci - [2025] QCA 131

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v WCI [2025] QCA 131

PARTIES:

R
v
WCI
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No XX of 2025
SC No XXX of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at [Redacted] – Date of Sentence: X June 2025 [Redacted]

DELIVERED ON:

22 July 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 July 2025

JUDGES:

Mullins P, Bradley JA and Morrison AJA

ORDERS:

1. Application for leave to adduce evidence refused.

2. Application for leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of methylamphetamine where the quantity exceeded 200 grams and one count of unlawful possession of the dangerous drug cocaine where the quantity exceeded 2 grams – where the applicant was acting as a courier and transporting 1.513 kgs of pure methylamphetamine and 59.1 gms of pure cocaine – where the applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for count 1 and convicted and not further punished on count 2 – where the applicant’s eligibility for parole date was fixed about 11 months after sentence – where the applicant had mitigating factors including the applicant’s age, lack of criminal history, early plea of guilty, that she had been the subject of domestic violence leading up to the offending which had an indirect connection with the offending, significant cooperation with the administration of justice, her pregnancy and the probable effect of the applicant’s imprisonment on her baby, and the delay between offending and the sentence – where the mitigating factors were taken into account by the sentencing judge – where it was submitted by the applicant on appeal that a sentence involving actual custody was manifestly excessive – whether the imposition of a sentence requiring actual custody was manifestly excessive

R v Cooney[2004] QCA 244, cited
R v Oliver[2007] QCA 361, cited
R v Van Huynh[2003] QCA 371, cited

COUNSEL:

J R Hunter KC for the applicant
T L Corsbie for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Gnech & Associates for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE COURT: In early June 2025 the applicant pleaded guilty to possession of the dangerous drug methylamphetamine where the quantity exceeded 200 grams (count 1) and unlawful possession of the dangerous drug cocaine where the quantity exceeded 2 grams (count 2). Both offences were committed on 20 October 2022. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for six years on count 1 and convicted and not further punished on count 2. Presentence custody of 19 days between 20 October and 7 November 2022 was declared to be time already served under the sentence. The date for eligibility for parole was fixed as 12 May 2026. The applicant applies for leave to appeal on the ground the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and, in particular, by the applicant being required to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Wci

Details

AGLC: R v Wci [2025] QCA 131
Case: [2025] QCA 131
Decision Date: 22 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wci, the applicant, who had previously pleaded guilty to possession of methylamphetamine exceeding 200 grams and unlawful possession of cocaine exceeding 2 grams, appealed against her sentence. The applicant had been acting as a courier and was found with a substantial quantity of methylamphetamine and cocaine. She was sentenced to six years' imprisonment for the first count and convicted but not further punished on the second count. The court set the eligibility date for parole about 11 months after the sentence was handed down. The applicant's appeal focused on the argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Several mitigating factors were considered by the sentencing judge, including the applicant's age, lack of a criminal history, early plea of guilty, exposure to domestic violence, significant cooperation with the justice system, her pregnancy, and the potential impact of imprisonment on her unborn child. The applicant argued that a sentence involving actual custody was manifestly excessive, and the court was required to determine if this was indeed the case.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed, which required actual custody, was manifestly excessive. The court considered the mitigating factors presented and evaluated their relevance and weight in the context of the severity of the offence. The court examined whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the gravity of the crime and the mitigating circumstances. The applicant's age, lack of prior criminal history, early plea of guilty, and significant cooperation with the justice system were noted. The court also considered the impact of domestic violence on the applicant, which had an indirect connection to her offending, and the potential effects of her imprisonment on her unborn child. The court had to determine whether these factors justified a reduction in the severity of the sentence.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court recognised the mitigating factors presented but determined that they did not sufficiently justify a significant reduction in the sentence. The gravity of the offence, involving the transportation of a substantial quantity of dangerous drugs, warranted a substantial penalty. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the seriousness of the crime and took into account the mitigating factors presented. The application for leave to adduce evidence and the application for leave to appeal were both refused. The court upheld the original sentence and did not find it to be manifestly excessive.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to adduce evidence refused.

2. Application for leave to appeal refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v WCI [2025] QCA 131
PARTIES:	R v WCI (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No XX of 2025 SC No XXX of 2024
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at [Redacted] – Date of Sentence: X June 2025 [Redacted]
DELIVERED ON:	22 July 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 July 2025
JUDGES:	Mullins P, Bradley JA and Morrison AJA
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to adduce evidence refused. 2. Application for leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of methylamphetamine where the quantity exceeded 200 grams and one count of unlawful possession of the dangerous drug cocaine where the quantity exceeded 2 grams – where the applicant was acting as a courier and transporting 1.513 kgs of pure methylamphetamine and 59.1 gms of pure cocaine – where the applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for count 1 and convicted and not further punished on count 2 – where the applicant’s eligibility for parole date was fixed about 11 months after sentence – where the applicant had mitigating factors including the applicant’s age, lack of criminal history, early plea of guilty, that she had been the subject of domestic violence leading up to the offending which had an indirect connection with the offending, significant cooperation with the administration of justice, her pregnancy and the probable effect of the applicant’s imprisonment on her baby, and the delay between offending and the sentence – where the mitigating factors were taken into account by the sentencing judge – where it was submitted by the applicant on appeal that a sentence involving actual custody was manifestly excessive – whether the imposition of a sentence requiring actual custody was manifestly excessive R v Cooney[2004] QCA 244, cited R v Oliver[2007] QCA 361, cited R v Van Huynh[2003] QCA 371, cited
COUNSEL:	J R Hunter KC for the applicant T L Corsbie for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Gnech & Associates for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent